THE MANUAL ELEMENT IN EDUCATION IN 1884.
The Kindergarten and the Manual Training School one in Principle. --
Russia solved the Problem of Tool Instruction by Laboratory Processes.
-- The Initiatory Step by M. Victor Della-Vos, Director of the
Imperial Technical School of Moscow in 1868. -- Statement of Director
Della-Vos as to the Origin, Progress, and Results of the New System of
Training. -- Its Introduction into all the Technical Schools of
Russia. -- Dr. John D. Runkle, President of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, recommends the Russian System in 1876, and it
is adopted. -- Statement of Dr. Runkle as to how he was led to the
adoption of the Russian System. -- Dr. Woodward, of Washington
University, St. Louis, Mo., establishes the second School in this
Country. -- His Historical Note in the Prospectus of 1882-83. -- First
Class graduated 1883. -- Manual Training in the Agricultural Colleges
-- In Boston, in New Haven, in Baltimore, in San Francisco, and other
places. -- Manual Training at the Meeting of the National Educational
Association, 1884. -- Kindergarten and Manual Training Exhibits. --
Prof. Felix Adler’s School in New York City -- the most Comprehensive
School in the World. -- The Chicago Manual Training School the first
Independent Institution of the Kind -- its Inception; its
Incorporation; its Opening. Its Director, Dr. Belfield. -- His
Inaugural Address. -- Manual Training in the Public Schools of
Philadelphia. -- Manual Training in twenty-four States. --
Revolutionizing a Texas College. -- Local Option Law in Massachusetts.
-- Department of Domestic Economy in the Iowa Agricultural College. --
Manual Training in Tennessee, in the University of Michigan, in the
National Educational Association, in Ohio. -- The Toledo School for
both Sexes. -- The Importance of the Education of Woman. -- The Slöjd
Schools of Europe.
The principle of the manual training school exists in the kindergarten,
and for that principle we are indebted directly to Froebel, and
indirectly to Pestalozzi, Comenius, Rousseau, and Bacon. But it was
reserved for Russia to solve the problem of tool instruction by the
laboratory process, and make it the foundation of a great reform in
education. The initiatory step was taken in 1868 by M. Victor Della-Vos,
Director of the Imperial Technical School of Moscow. The following
statement is extracted from the account given by Director Della-Vos of
the exhibit of the Moscow school at Philadelphia (Centennial of 1876),
and at the Paris Exposition in 1878, as best showing the inception of
the new education:
[Illustration: M. VICTOR DELLA-VOS, THE FOUNDER OF MANUAL TRAINING IN
RUSSIA.]
“In 1868 the school council considered it indispensable, in order to
secure the systematical teaching of elementary practical work, as well
as for the more convenient supervision of the pupils while practically
employed, to separate entirely the school workshops from the mechanical
works in which the orders from private individuals are executed,
admitting pupils to the latter only when they have perfectly acquired
the principles of practical labor.
“By the separation alone of the school workshops from the mechanical
works, the principal aim was, however, far from being attained. It was
found necessary to work out such a method of teaching the elementary
principles of mechanical art as, firstly, should demand the least
possible length of time for their acquirement; secondly, should increase
the facility of the supervision of the graded employment of the pupils;
thirdly, should impart to the study of practical work the character of a
sound systematical acquirement of knowledge; and fourthly and lastly,
should facilitate the demonstration of the progress of every pupil at
every stated time. Everybody is well aware that the successful study of
any art whatsoever, free-hand or linear drawing, music, singing,
painting, etc., is only attainable when the first attempts at any of
them are strictly subject to the laws of gradation and successiveness,
when every student adheres to a definite method or school, surmounting
little by little, and by certain degrees, the difficulties encountered.
“All those arts which we have just named possess a method of study which
has been well worked out and defined, because, since they have long
constituted a part of the education of the well-instructed classes of
people, they could not but become subject to scientific analysis, could
not but become the objects of investigation, with a view of defining
those conditions which might render the study of them as easy and well
regulated as possible.
“If we except the attempts made in France in the year 1867 by the
celebrated and learned mechanical engineer, A. Cler, to form a
collection of models for the practical study of the principal methods of
forging and welding iron and steel, as well as the chief parts of
joiners’ work, and this with a purely demonstrative aim, no one, as far
as we are aware, has hitherto been actively engaged in the working out
of this question in its application to the study of hand labor in
workshops. To the Imperial Technical School belongs the initiative in
the introduction of a systematical method of teaching the arts of
turning, carpentering, fitting, and forging.
“To the knowledge and experience in these specialties, of the gentlemen
intrusted with the management of the school workshops, and to their warm
sympathy in the matter of practical education, we are indebted for the
drawing up of the programme of systematical instruction in the
mechanical arts, its introduction in the year 1868 into the workshops,
and also for the preparation of the necessary auxiliaries to study. In
the year 1870, at the exhibition of manufactures at St. Petersburg, the
school exhibited its methods of teaching mechanical arts, and from that
time they have been common to all the technical schools of Russia.
“And now (1878) we present our system of instruction, not as a project,
but as an accomplished fact, confirmed by the long experience of ten
years of success in its results.”
For the introduction of the manual element in education to the United
States we are indebted to the intellectual acumen of Dr. John D. Runkle,
Ph.D., LL.D., Walker Professor of Mathematics, Institute of Technology,
Boston, Mass. In 1876 Doctor Runkle was President of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. In his official report for that year he gave an
exhaustive exposition of the Russian system, in the course of which he
said,
“We went to Philadelphia, therefore, earnestly seeking for light in this
as well as in all other directions, and this special report is now made
to ask your attention to a fundamental, and, as I think, complete
solution of this most important problem of practical mechanism for
engineers. The question is simply this, Can a system of shop-work
instruction be devised of sufficient range and quality which will not
consume more time than ought to be spared from the indispensable
studies?
“This question has been answered triumphantly in the affirmative, and
the answer comes from Russia. It gives me the greatest pleasure to call
your attention to the exhibit made by the Imperial Technical Schools of
St. Petersburg and Moscow, consisting entirely of collections of tools
and samples of shop-work by students, illustrating the system which has
made these magnificent results possible.”
In conclusion Doctor Runkle made the following earnest recommendation:
“In the light of the experience which Russia brings us, not only in the
form of a proposed system, but proved by several years of experience in
more than a single school, it seems to me that the duty of the Institute
is plain. We should, without delay, complete our course in Mechanical
Engineering by adding a series of instruction shops, which I earnestly
recommend.”
In accordance with this recommendation the “new school of Mechanic Arts”
was created, and made part of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In his report for 1877 Doctor Runkle said,
“The plan announced in my last report, of building a series of shops
[laboratories] in which to teach the students in the department of
Mechanical Engineering and others the use of tools, and the fundamental
steps in the art of construction, in accordance with the Russian system,
as exhibited at Philadelphia in 1876, has been carried steadily forward,
and I have now the pleasure of announcing its near completion.”
Reference is also made in the same report to the action of the trustees
of the Institute in acknowledging the reception of certain models
illustrating the system of Mechanic Art education, presented by the
government of Russia, as follows:
“At a meeting of the Corporation of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, held November 20, 1877, a communication from his Excellency,
Hon. George H. Boker, American Minister at St. Petersburg, was read,
announcing the gift to this Institute of eight cases of models,
illustrating the system of Mechanic Art education, as devised and so
successfully applied at the Imperial Technical School of Moscow. The
undersigned have been charged with the agreeable duty of transmitting to
his Imperial Highness the following resolutions:
[Illustration: DR. JOHN D. RUNKLE, THE FOUNDER OF MANUAL TRAINING IN THE
UNITED STATES.]
“_Resolved_, That the Corporation of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology takes this opportunity to cordially congratulate his Imperial
Highness, Prince Pierre d’Oldenbourg, that, at the Imperial Technical
School of Moscow, education in the Mechanic Arts has been for the first
time based upon philosophical and purely educational grounds, fully
justifying for it the title of the ‘Russian system.’
“_Resolved_, That this Corporation hereby tenders its grateful thanks to
his Imperial Highness for his most valuable gift, with the assurance
that these models will be of the greatest aid in promoting Mechanic Art
education not only in the School of this Institute, but in all similar
schools throughout the United States.”
Appreciating the value of the services rendered to the cause of the new
education by Dr. Runkle, in introducing to the schools of the United
States tool practice by laboratory methods, and desiring to inform the
public of the course of thought which led to results so important, the
author addressed him on the subject. His reply, under date of May 22,
1884, is in substance as follows:
“From the first the course in Mechanical Engineering has been an
important one in the Institute of Technology. A few students came with a
knowledge of shop-work, and had a clear field open to them on
graduation, but the larger number found it difficult to enter upon their
professional work without first taking one or two years of
apprenticeship. This always seemed to me a fault in the education, and
yet I did not see the way to remedy it without building up manufacturing
works in connection with the school--a step which I knew to be an
inversion of a true educational method.
“At Philadelphia, in 1876, almost the first thing I saw was a small case
containing three series of models--one of chipping and filing, one of
forging, and one of machine-tool work. I saw at once that they were not
parts of machines, but simply graded models for teaching the
manipulations in those arts. In an instant the problem I had been
seeking to solve was clear to my mind; a plain distinction between a
Mechanic Art and its application in some special trade became apparent.
“My first work was to build up at the Institute a series of Mechanic Art
shops, or laboratories, to teach these arts, just as we teach chemistry
and physics by the same means. At the same time I believed that this
discipline could be made a part of general education, just as we make
the sciences available for the same end through laboratory instruction.
“All teaching has in an important sense a double purpose: first, the
cultivation of the powers of the individual, and second, the pursuit of
similar subjects, by substantially the same means, as a professional
end. Now we use our shops [laboratories] both for educational and
professional ends.... In brief, we teach the mechanic arts by laboratory
methods, and the student applies the special skill and knowledge
acquired, or not, as circumstances or his inclinations dictate.”
The second manual training school in this country was founded as a
department of Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., by Dr. C. M.
Woodward. In a paper read before the St. Louis Social Science
Association, May 16, 1878, Dr. Woodward discussed the subject of
education both philosophically and practically. In the course of his
address he gave a full account of the Russian system of manual training
as expounded by Dr. Runkle, endorsed it, and recommended it to the
people of St. Louis as the true method of education in the following
pregnant sentence: “The manual education which begins in the
kindergarten, before the children are able to read a word, should never
cease.”[99]
[99] The pressing problem of the time in methods of practical
education is to devise suitable manual exercises for the school period
embraced in the interim between the end of the kindergarten series of
lessons and the beginning of the series of laboratory exercises
described in this work--the grammar-school period--for children of
both sexes from six to fourteen years of age.
In the same paper Dr. Woodward thus modestly describes the beginning of
the school which is now one of the most highly-esteemed educational
institutions of St. Louis:
“With the aid of our stanch friend, Mr. Gottlieb Conzelman, we fitted up
during last summer a wood-working shop, with work-benches and vises for
eighteen students; a second shop for vise-work upon metals and for
machine-work; and a third with a single outfit of blacksmith’s tools.
During the last few months systematic instruction has been given to
different classes in all these shops. Special attention has been paid to
the use of wood-working hand-tools, to wood-turning, and to filing.”
These tentative steps promoted a healthy public sentiment, and attracted
the attention of several wealthy men, who in 1879 contributed the funds
for the permanent foundation of the school. The prospectus for the year
1882-83 contains the following “historical note,” which shows great
progress:
“The ordinance establishing the Manual Training School was adopted by
the Board of Directors of the University, June 6, 1879.
“The lot was purchased and the building begun in August of the same
year. In the November following a prospectus of the school was
published. In June, 1880, the building being partially equipped, was
opened for public inspection, and a class of boys was examined for
admission. On September 6, 1880, the school began with a single class of
about fifty pupils. The whole number enrolled during the year was
sixty-seven. A public exhibition of drawing and shop-work was given June
16, 1881.
“The _second year_ of the school opened September 12, 1881, and closed
June 14, 1882. There were two classes, sixty-one pupils belonging to the
first year, and forty-six to the second year, making one hundred and
seven in all. Of the second-year class, forty-two had attended the
school the previous year.
“The _third year_ of the school will open on September 11th, when three
classes will be present.
“The large addition now in progress (June, 1882) is to be completed and
furnished by the day set for the examination of candidates for
admission, September 8th. The number of pupils in the new first-year
class is to be limited to one hundred. _Nearly one-half of that number
have already been received._”
The capacity of the school since the completion of the “addition”
alluded to in the “historical note” is two hundred and forty students.
The first class was graduated in June, 1883; the second class in June,
1884. The establishment of this excellent school is due first to the
energy and educational foresight of Dr. Woodward, and second, to the
munificent money donations of three citizens of St. Louis--Mr. Edwin
Harrison, Mr. Samuel Cupples, and Mr. Gottlieb Conzelman. Other citizens
emulated their noble example, and the result was a sufficient fund for
the support of the school, whose purpose is to demonstrate the
practicability of uniting manual and mental instruction in the public
schools of St. Louis and of the country. With a single further quotation
from the prospectus of the second great manual training school in the
United States, on the subject of labor, we close this too brief notice:
“One great object of the school is to foster a higher appreciation of
the value and dignity of intelligent labor, and the worth and
respectability of laboring men. A boy who sees nothing in manual labor
but mere brute force despises both labor and the laborer. With the
acquisition of skill in himself comes the ability and willingness to
recognize skill in his fellows. When once he appreciates skill in
handicraft, he regards the workman with sympathy and respect.”
Considerable progress in manual training has been made in the State
agricultural colleges of the country. In twelve of these colleges
drawing and tool practice have been introduced. Generally the tool
practice covers pattern-making, blacksmithing, moulding and founding,
forging and bench-work, and machine-tool work in iron. The most
pronounced success has been achieved at Purdue University, Lafayette,
Ind., under the directorship of Prof. Wm. F. M. Goss, who graduated from
the school of Mechanic Arts of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in 1879.
Manual training in connection with the public-school system of education
has been inaugurated in Boston and Milford, Mass.; New Haven, and the
State Normal School, New Britain, Conn.; Omaha, Neb.;[100] Eau Claire,
Wis.;[101] Moline, Peru, and the Cook County Normal School, Normal Park,
Ill.; Montclair, N. J.; Cleveland and Barnesville, Ohio; San Francisco,
Cal.; and Baltimore, Md.
[100] In charge of Albert M. Bumann, B.S., graduate of the St. Louis
Manual Training School, class of 1885.
[101] In charge of William F. Barnes, B.S., graduate of the St. Louis
Manual Training School, class of 1885.
On the occasion of the annual meeting of 1884 of the National
Educational Association of the United States, at Madison, Wis., manual
training received a very large share of the attention of educators. Very
creditable exhibits of various manipulations in wood, iron, and steel
were made by the following institutions, namely, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Purdue University, the St. Louis Manual
Training School, the Illinois Industrial University, the University of
Wisconsin, and the Spring Garden Institute of Philadelphia. There were
also about thirty kindergarten exhibits, and a large number of exhibits
of specimens of drawing from public schools in various parts of the
country.
Prof. Felix Adler’s educational enterprise in the city of New York--The
Workingman’s School and Free Kindergarten--is unique in this that, while
it is entirely a work of charity, it is the most comprehensive
educational institution in existence, as appears from the following
description of its course of instruction:
“The Workingman’s School and Free Kindergarten form one institution. The
children are admitted at the age of three to the kindergarten. They are
graduated from it at six, and enter the workingman’s school. They remain
in the school till they are thirteen or fourteen years of age.
Thereafter those who show decided ability receive higher technical
instruction. For the others who leave the school proper and are sent to
work, a series of evening classes will be opened, in which their
industrial and general education will be continued in various
directions. This graduate course of the workingman’s school is intended
to extend up to the eighteenth or twenty-first year.
“From the third year up to manhood and womanhood--such,” says Prof.
Adler, “is the scope embraced by the purposes of our institution!”
The following extracts from a late report of the principal of the
school, Mr. G. Bamberger, on its “purposes,” show that they are
identical with those of the so-called manual training school, and also
that its methods are similar:
“We, therefore, have undertaken to institute a reform in education in
the following two ways: We begin industrial instruction at the very
earliest age possible. Already in our kindergarten we lay the foundation
for the system of work instruction that is to follow. In the school
proper, then, we seek to bridge over the interval lying between the
preparatory kindergarten training and the specialized instruction of the
technical school, utilizing the school age itself for the development of
industrial ability. This, however, is only one characteristic feature of
our institution. The other, and the capital one, is, that we seek to
combine industrial instruction organically with the ordinary branches of
instruction, thus using it not only for the material purpose of
creating skill, but also ideally as a factor of mind-education. To our
knowledge, such an application of work instruction has nowhere as yet
been attempted, either abroad or in this country....
“In the teaching of history to these young children we hold it essential
that the teacher should be entirely independent of any text-book, and
able to freely handle the vast material at his disposal, and to draw
from it, as from an endless storehouse, with fixed and definite purpose.
We attach even greater importance to the moral than to the intellectual
significance of history. The benefits which the understanding, the
memory, and the imagination derive from the study of history are not
small. But history, considered as a realm of actions, can be made
especially fruitful of sound influence upon the active, moral side of
human nature. The moral judgment is strengthened by a knowledge of the
evolution of mankind in good and evil. The moral feelings are purified
by abhorrence of the vices of the past, and by admiration of examples of
greatness and virtue. Text-books are not to be discarded, but their
choice is a matter of great difficulty. Thus, all books in which
historical instruction is given in the shape of printed questions and
answers are highly objectionable. They are convenient bridges which lead
to nothing.”
The following extract from a late report of Prof. Adler shows the
purpose of the establishment of what he calls the “model school” to be
identical with that of the projectors of the St. Louis and Chicago
manual training schools, namely, the ultimate adoption by the public
schools of the country of a far more rational system of instruction than
that which at present prevails. He says,
“It seemed to us, therefore, far more necessary, far more calculated to
really advance the public good, that one model school should be erected
in which the entire system of rational and liberal education for the
children of the poorer class might be exhibited from beginning to end.
We ventured to hope that such an example, having once been set, would
not be without effect upon the common-school system at large, and that
the extension of our work would proceed by the natural course of the
‘survival of what is fittest.’ It was decided, therefore, that the
twenty-five graduates from the kindergarten should be invited to remain
with us, that a complete school should be instituted, and that a teacher
should be at once appointed to take in hand the instruction of the
lowest class. The munificence of Mr. Joseph Seligman, to whose name we
cannot refer without gratitude and respect, at this stage enabled us to
go on with our undertaking, when the dearth of funds would otherwise
have compelled us to wait, or perhaps desist altogether. His timely gift
of ten thousand dollars was the means of starting the school, and on
this as well as on other accounts his memory deserves to be cherished by
those who cherish the educational interests of the people.”
The Chicago Manual Training School is the only independent educational
institution of the kind in the world. All the schools of this character
to which reference has been made in this chapter are departments of
colleges or institutes of technology. The Chicago school is unique in
another respect: it owes its origin entirely to laymen. Professional
educators labored long and earnestly to found the schools we have
described, but the Chicago school was inspired by men unknown in the
field of educational enterprise, advocated by a secular daily journal,
and established by an association of merchants, manufacturers, and
bankers. For many years the _Chicago Tribune_ had very freely and
severely criticised the educational methods of the public schools. Early
in the year 1881 its editorial columns were opened to the author of this
work, who began and continued, therein, the advocacy of the
establishment of a manual training school in Chicago, as a tentative
step towards the incorporation in the curriculum of the public schools,
of more practical methods of instruction.
The editorial advocacy of the _Tribune_ was continued for twelve months,
articles appearing about once a week, without apparent effect beyond
provoking a controversy with certain professional educators, who
attacked the positions assumed by the _Tribune_. But a public sentiment
had been created on the subject, and the Commercial Club was destined
soon to embody that sentiment in action. At its regular monthly meeting,
March 25, 1882, the subject of reform in methods of education was
discussed by members of the club, and by men invited to be present for
that purpose; the establishment of a school was resolved upon, and
$100,000 pledged for its support.
The Chicago Manual Training School Association was incorporated April
11, 1883; the corner-stone of its building was laid September 24, 1883;
and the sessions of the school commenced on the 4th of February, 1884,
with a class of seventy-two students, “selected by examination from one
hundred and thirty applicants, under the directorship of Henry H.
Belfield, A.M., Ph.D.”
The Board of Trustees consists of E. W. Blatchford, president; R. T.
Crane, vice-president; Marshall Field, treasurer; William A. Fuller,
secretary; John Crerar, John W. Doane, N. K. Fairbank, Edson Keith, and
George M. Pullman.
The object of the school is stated in the articles of incorporation as
follows:
“Instruction and practice in the use of tools, with such instruction as
may be deemed necessary in mathematics, drawing, and the English
branches of a high-school course. The tool instruction as at present
contemplated shall include carpentry, wood-turning, pattern-making, iron
chipping and filing, forge-work, brazing and soldering, the use of
machine-shop tools, and such other instruction of a similar character as
may be deemed advisable to add to the foregoing from time to time, it
being the intention to divide the working hours of the students, as
nearly as possible, equally between manual and mental exercises.”
From the first annual catalogue, under the title “Building and
Equipment,” we extract the following:
“The school building is beautifully located on Michigan Avenue, and
contains ample accommodations, in rooms for study and work, for several
hundred pupils.
“The equipment in the mechanical department consists mainly, at present,
of twenty-four cabinet-makers’ benches; bench and lathe tools of the
best quality for seventy-two boys; twenty-four speed lathes, twelve-inch
swing, thirty inches between centres; a fifty-two horse-power Corliss
engine, twelve-inch cylinder, thirty-six inch stroke; two tubular
boilers, forty inches in diameter, fourteen feet long. The Corliss
engine, boilers, and lathes were made especially for the school.
“A very valuable scientific library of nearly five hundred volumes, the
property of the American Electrical Society, has been placed in the
school. To this library, which is particularly rich in works pertaining
to electricity and chemistry, but which contains also cyclopedias,
dictionaries, and other works of reference, the pupils have access.
“The Blatchford Literary Society, an organization of pupils for
improvement in composition, debate, etc., has lately had a handsome
donation of money for the purchase of books to be placed in their alcove
in the school library. Several periodicals are regularly placed on the
library tables through the generosity of the publishers.
“By the kindness of Dr. Wm. F. Poole, librarian, pupils are able to
obtain books from the Chicago Public Library on unusually favorable
conditions.”
Thus the Chicago Manual Training School, a practical school, a school of
instruction in things, a school after Bacon’s “own heart,” sprang from
the brains of a number of plain, practical business men, full-armed, as
Minerva from the brain of Jupiter.
The Trustees were fortunate in securing Dr. Belfield for the
directorship of the school. Before the introduction of the new education
to this country, eleven years ago, while Russia was struggling with the
problem of tool practice by the laboratory method, Dr. Belfield urged
the need of manual training in the public schools of Chicago, in which
he was a teacher. He was met with derision; but the president of the
Board of Education of Chicago and the superintendent of schools are now
advocates of the new system of training.
In conclusion we present the following extracts from the inaugural
address of Dr. Belfield, delivered before the Chicago Manual Training
School Association, June 19, 1884, as embodying the results of his
experience and observation as to the value of the new system of
training:
“The distinctive feature of the manual training school is the education
of the mind, and of the hand as the agent of the mind. The time of the
pupil in school is about equally divided between the study of books and
the study of things; between the academic work on the one hand, and the
drawing and shop-work on the other. Observe, I do not say between
_school-work_ and _shop-work_, for the shop is as much a school as is
any other part of the establishment. Nor do I mean that the shop gives
an education of the hand alone, and the class-room an education of the
brain; but I mean that the shop educates _hand and brain_. That the
_hand_ is educated I need not stop to prove; but the shop educates the
mind also.
“Had you been in the wood-working room of this school a few hours ago,
what would you have seen? Twenty-four boys at work at lathes driven by a
powerful engine. Are any idle? No. Are any inattentive to their work?
No; you notice the closest and most earnest attention, frequently
approaching abstraction. Here, then, is the cultivation of a most
important faculty of the mind, attention, the power of concentration;
and it is worthy of remark that this attention is not an _enforced_
attention, but is cheerful, voluntary, and unremitting.
“The young workman is engaged on a problem in wood, just as, a few hours
earlier, he was engaged on a problem in algebra. He has before him a
drawing made to a scale. The problem is this: He must gain a clear
conception of the object represented by the drawing; he must _imagine_
it; he must select or cut a block of wood of the proper dimensions and
of the right quality. It must not be too large, for he must guard
against waste of material and waste of time. It must be large enough,
for there must be no incompleteness about the finished product of his
labor. Observe him as the work grows under his hand; observe the
selecting of the proper tools for the different parts of the process;
observe the careful measuring, the watchful eye upon the position of the
chisel, the speed of the lathe, the gradual approach of the once
rectangular block to the model which exists in his brain--and you must
admit that this work demands and develops, not manual dexterity alone,
but attention, observation, imagination, judgment, reasoning....
“My own opinion is that an hour in the shop of a well-conducted manual
training school develops as much mental strength as an hour devoted to
Virgil or Legendre....
“But of this I am confident, that three years of a manual training
school will give at least as much purely intellectual growth as three
years of the ordinary high school, because, as has been said, every
school hour, whether spent in the class-room, the drawing-room, or in
the shop, is an hour devoted to intellectual training. And I am also
convinced that the manual training school boy’s comprehension of some
essential branches of knowledge will be as far superior to that of the
other boy’s, as the realization of the grandeur and beauty of the Alps
to the man who has seen their glories is superior to the conception of
him who has merely read of them....
“And here is the mistake of those who would degrade a manual training
school into a manufacturing establishment. The fact should never be lost
sight of for an instant that the product of the school should be, not
the polished article of furniture, not the perfect piece of machinery,
but the polished, perfect _boy_. The acquisition of industrial skill
should be the means of promoting the general education of the pupil; the
education of the hand should be the means of more completely and more
efficaciously educating the brain....
“Take two boys, one with little or no education, the other a high-school
graduate; let them enter the machine-shop of a large manufactory,
beginning, as boys ignorant of the technique of the trade must begin, at
the lowest round of the ladder. It cannot be doubted that in three or
four years the high-school graduate, if he had been willing to do the
drudgery incident to the place, would have reached a higher position
than the other boy, and would be in a fair way to succeed to some
responsible post in the establishment. But the graduate of the manual
training school, by reason of his superior knowledge of machinery and
materials, his skill in the use of tools, added to his general mental
training, would begin at the point reached by the high-school boy after
his years of apprenticeship. From the day of his entrance into the
factory he would be conspicuous. While the other boys would stand in the
presence of the huge Titan of the shop lost in the wonder of ignorance,
the manual training boy would gaze with delight on the marvel of
mechanism, wrapped in the admiration begotten of a thorough
understanding of its construction, and strong in the consciousness of
his mastery of it.”
Manual training was introduced in the Pennsylvania State College,
experimentally, about three years ago. In 1883 the course was “greatly
extended,” and in September, 1884, it went into full operation. The
course is substantially the same as that of the Chicago school; and that
it was the outgrowth of the Russian system, and inspired by Dr. Runkle,
is shown by the following extract from a circular lately issued by Prof.
Louis E. Reber:
“Some may think that the variety of operations in the mechanic arts is
so great as to make it impossible to give the student any real knowledge
in the time at his disposal. It should be borne in mind, however, that
this multiplicity of processes may be reduced to a small number of
manual operations, and the numerous tools employed are only
modifications of, or convenient substitutes for, a few tools which are
in general use.”
A course in tool practice by the laboratory method has been made part of
the curriculum of the College of the City of New York.[102] I am
permitted to make an extract from a letter written in August last by
Alfred G. Compton, Professor of Applied Mathematics of the College of
the City of New York, to Dr. Runkle. I print this extract to show the
exacting nature of the demands made upon instructors by the new
education. It is as follows:
[102] “The first report of the Industrial Educational Association of
New York gives a list of thirty-one schools in that city in which
industrial education is furnished.”--Address of Prof. S. R. Thompson,
Industrial Department of the National Educational Association,
Saratoga Springs, N. Y., July, 1885.
“We are anxious to find, by the opening of our term in September, a
competent instructor in wood-working for our course in mechanic arts,
now in its second year. He should be a good and ready draughtsman,
skilful in perspective and projections, and ready in black-board
sketching, besides being acquainted with the use of tools, and apt at
class-teaching. He will have at first $1000 a year.”
The lack of competent instructors is the most serious difficulty which
the new education is destined to encounter. The desire to adopt tool
practice is so widespread among the people that educators, whether
willing or otherwise, are compelled to attempt to gratify the demand.
At the same time the force of competent instructors is very small, and
the danger is that the new system of education will be brought into
disrepute through the failure of its proper administration.
In 1882 Mr. Paul Tulane, of Princeton, N. J., made a large donation,
consisting of his realty in the city of New Orleans, in aid of education
in the State of Louisiana. In 1884 the University bearing its donor’s
name--Tulane--came into existence. In the deed of donation Mr. Tulane
declared that by the term education he meant to “foster such a course of
intellectual development as shall be useful and of solid worth, and not
be merely ornamental or superficial.” Hence manual training has been
made a prominent feature of the institution.[103]
[103] John M. Ordway, A.M., late Professor of Metallurgy and
Industrial Chemistry of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has
been called to New Orleans to organize and direct the manual training
department of the institution; and he is assisted by Charles A. Heath,
B.S., and Everett E. Hapgood, graduates of the School of Mechanic Arts
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
There is in operation at Crozet, Va., a manual training school called,
after its founder, Mr. Samuel Miller, “The Miller Manual Labor School;”
but of the methods of training pursued at this school the author is not
accurately informed.
Girard College, dedicated nearly forty years ago, has adopted manual
training. In response to a letter by the author, asking for information,
Mr. W. Heyward Drayton, of Philadelphia, gives the following historical
sketch of the introduction and progress of tool practice by the
laboratory method in that noble institution:
“From time to time some of the directors recognized the importance of
mechanical instruction, but after one or two attempts further efforts in
this direction were abandoned, as those proved utter failures. It was
not until Dr. Runkle, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at
the instance of the late Mr. William Welsh, then president of the Board
of Directors of City Trusts, delivered a short address on the subject in
the lecture-room of the Franklin Institute in this city, that any
practical mode of introducing this branch of study into the college was
presented.
“... Following as nearly as possible the scheme suggested by Dr. Runkle,
and aided by many suggestions from him, in April, 1882, we began to
instruct the larger boys to use tools in several kinds of metals. We
were so fortunate as to secure the services of a very competent and
enthusiastic instructor, who confined his instruction merely to teaching
the use of tools, but without any pretence of teaching any trade. The
result of two years’ experience has been so satisfactory that our boys
leave the college to go to workshops, where they secure sufficient wages
to support them at once; and they have, in many cases, been found so
expert that in a few months their wages have been increased. We have
been so encouraged by this as a substitute for apprenticing lads, which
is fast becoming impossible, that we have just erected commodious
workshops [laboratories], in which, on the same system, but to many more
boys, we propose to teach the use of tools in wood-work also, as we have
heretofore taught in metals. To this time we have been compelled, from
want of facilities, to confine our instruction to about one hundred and
seventy-five boys. We expect next month (October, 1884) to increase the
number to three hundred--only being limited by the youth of the pupils,
many of whom are too young to permit of their handling tools.”
Manual training has been made part of the curriculum of the Agricultural
and Mechanical College of Auburn, Ala., and the department is under the
direction of a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.[104]
[104] George H. Bryant, B.S., graduate of the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, class of 1883.
* * * * *
Manual training has been adopted as a branch of education in the Denver
(Col.) University, and the director of the department is a graduate of
the manual training department of the Washington University of St.
Louis, Mo.[105]
[105] C. H. Wright, B.S., graduate of the St. Louis Manual Training
School, class of 1885.
The present year (1885) witnesses a very important addition to the list
of manual training schools--that of Philadelphia.
It is not too much to say that Mr. James MacAlister has revolutionized
the public schools of Philadelphia in the short period of two years
during which he has held the office of superintendent; and the last wave
of the revolution reveals a fully-equipped manual training school as
part of the public-school system of the conservative, grand old Quaker
city. And this practical element in education is to be free to all
public-school boys fourteen years of age, who can show themselves
qualified to enter, as witness the following “rules” of the Philadelphia
public schools:
“Promotions to the Manual Training School shall be made at the close of
the June term, from the Twelfth Grade, or any higher grade, of the
Boys’ Grammar, Consolidated and Combined Schools; but no boy shall be
promoted who is under fourteen years of age.
“It shall be the duty of the Principals of the several Boys’ Grammar,
Consolidated and Combined Schools, to certify to the superintendent of
schools the names of all boys of the proper age who have finished the
course of study in the Twelfth Grade, or any higher grade, and are
desirous of promotion to the Manual Training School.”
In calling the attention of the public to the establishment of a manual
training school as part of the educational system of Philadelphia, a
committee of the City Board of Education say, under date of June 10,
1885,
“The undersigned desire to call attention to the new manual training
school to be opened in this city next September. It is intended for boys
who have finished the Twelfth Grade, or any higher grade, of the
Grammar-school course. The instruction will embrace a thorough course,
so far as it goes, in English, mathematics, free-hand and mechanical
drawing, and the fundamental sciences; but in addition to these branches
a carefully graded course of manual training will form a leading feature
of the school. This manual training is intended to give the boys such a
knowledge of the tools and materials employed in the chief industrial
pursuits of our time as shall place them in more direct and sympathetic
relations with the great activities of the business world. The school
will make our public education not only more complete and symmetrical in
character than it has been heretofore, but it will be at the same time
better adapted to enable the pupils to win their way in life. No matter
what future a parent may have marked out for his boy--whether he be
intended for an industrial, a mercantile, or a professional occupation,
it is believed that such an education will be of immense advantage to
him. Upon the industries of the world, to a much larger extent than ever
before in its history, depend the progress, the prosperity, the
happiness of society. To prepare boys for this condition of things will
be the aim of this school. The entire course of instruction and training
will be _practical_ in the largest and best sense of that term. The
culture it gives will include the hand as well as the head, and its
graduates will be trained to work as well as to think. The course will
extend over a period of three years, but it is so arranged that boys
whose intended pursuits in life will not warrant spending so much time
may participate in its advantages for a shorter period before entering
upon other studies or a permanent occupation.
“The Manual Training School has been organized in response to a growing
sentiment respecting the character of public education which has been
strongly manifested in Philadelphia, and the Board of Public Education
believe that the movement, when fully understood, will meet with the
cordial approval of our people. Your careful consideration of the nature
and objects which the school seeks to accomplish is respectfully
solicited.”
This act of the school authorities of the city of Philadelphia is the
strongest popular endorsement the theory of manual training as an
element of education has received. It commits a great city to a fair
trial of the new education under the most favorable auspices--under the
conduct of Mr. James MacAlister, one of the most accomplished, as well
as most sternly practical educators in the United States.
But this is only part of a general system of manual training introduced
throughout the whole course of instruction given in the public schools
of Philadelphia. There are kindergartens (sub-primaries) for children
from three to six years of age, and an industrial art department for all
the students (of both sexes) of the grammar schools. In this latter
department the course of training comprises “drawing and design,”
“modelling,” “wood-carving,” “carpentry and joinery,” and “metal work.”
These courses, including manual training proper, “at the top,” form a
comprehensive system of head and hand training known as the new
education. Mr. MacAlister says, “The conviction is gradually obtaining
among the members of the Board of Education [of Philadelphia], and in
the public mind, that every child should receive manual training; that a
complete education implies the training of the hand in connection with
the training of the mind; and that this feature must ultimately be
incorporated into the public education. What is this but the realization
of the principles which every great thinker and reformer in education
has insisted upon, from Comenius, Locke, and Rousseau, to Pestalozzi,
Froebel, and Spencer!”[106]
[106] In a letter to the author, Mr. MacAlister re-enforces the
observations quoted in the text. He says,
“I wish you to understand that all my own convictions and action in
connection with this movement are based upon what in my judgment
should constitute an education fitted to prepare a human being for the
social conditions of to-day, _and not merely upon the industrial
demands of our time_.... I believe there is a great future for the
manual training movement in Philadelphia. I feel encouraged to go
forward with the work. The great principles which underlie the system
are with me intense convictions; _they mean nothing less than a
revolution in education_. The great ideas of the reformers of school
training must be realized in the public schools, or they will fail in
accomplishing the ends for which they were instituted and have been
maintained.”
The rapid progress of the revolution in education is shown by the fact
that manual training in some form has been adopted in certain of the
schools of at least twenty-four of the States of the American Union.
In some of the higher educational institutions the new education is
warmly welcomed, while in others public sentiment alone compels its
adoption. The State Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas has
been revolutionized in this way. A member of the Faculty[107] writes as
follows:
[107] H. H. Dinwiddie, Professor of Chemistry, Chairman of the
Faculty.
“This institution was opened on the 4th of October, 1876. In spite of
its name, the conditions of its endowment, and its avowed object, it was
founded on the plan of the old classical and mathematical college, and
had no industrial features whatever till the beginning of the year 1880.
At that time the public sentiment of the State had condemned so
decidedly and repeatedly the misappropriation of the funds, and
perversion of the energies of the college under its administration as a
literary school, that the directors found it necessary to reorganize it
by accepting the resignation of the members of the faculty without
exception, and calling in a new corps of instructors. In 1880-81 a large
dormitory building was converted into a shop [laboratory]. This was
fitted with tools for elementary instruction in wood-working for the
accommodation of about fifty students. A small metal-working plant was
also erected, the whole being furnished with power from a
twelve-horse-power engine. Since that time a brick shop [laboratory] has
been provided for the accommodation of the metal-working machinery,
which now includes the principal machines used in ordinary
iron-working, all driven by a twenty-horsepower engine.”
Massachusetts, the cradle of the American common-school system, is the
first State to legalize by statute the new education, placing manual
training on an equal footing with mental training, by the following act:
“Section I. of Chapter XLIV. of the Public Statutes, relating to the
branches of instruction to be taught in public schools, is amended by
striking out in the eighth line the words ‘and hygiene,’ and inserting
instead the words ‘hygiene and the elementary use of hand-tools;’ and in
any city or town where such tools shall be introduced they shall be
purchased by the school committee at the expense of such city or town,
and loaned to such pupils as may be allowed to use them free of charge,
subject to such rules and regulations, as to care and custody, as the
school committee may prescribe.”[108]
[108] “School Laws of Massachusetts. Supplement to the Edition of
1883, containing the Additional Legislation to the Close of the
Legislative Session of 1885; issued by the State Board of Education.”
The Legislature of Connecticut adopted a similar statute last year
(1884).
The Iowa Agricultural College is the first educational institution in
the country to recognize the importance of instruction in the arts of
home life. In this college domestic economy has been elevated to the
dignity of a department called the “School of Domestic Economy,” with
the following “special faculty:”
The President, Mrs. Emma P. Ewing, Dean. _Domestic Economy_.
J. L. Budd _Horticulture and Gardening_.
A. A. Bennett _Chemistry_.
B. D. Halsted _Botany_.
D. S. Fairchild _Hygiene and Physiology_.
Laura M. Saunderson _Elocution_.
The course of study is as follows:
FIRST YEAR.
_First Term._ _Second Term._
Domestic Economy. Domestic Economy.
Botany. Physiology and Hygiene.
Physical Training. Dress-fitting and Millinery.
Household Accounts. Essays.
SECOND YEAR.
_First Term._ _Second Term._
Domestic Economy. Domestic Economy.
Chemistry. Home Architecture.
Duties of the Nurse. Home Sanitation.
Designing and Free-hand Drawing. Home Æsthetics and Decorative Art.
Landscape and Floral Gardening. Essays and Graduating Thesis.
Mrs. Ewing, dean of the school, thus states, clearly and powerfully, the
reasons for its establishment and its purposes:
“This school is based upon the assumption that no industry is more
important to human happiness than that which makes the home; and that a
pleasant home is an essential element of broad culture, and one of the
surest safeguards of morality and virtue. It was organized to meet the
wants of pupils who desire a knowledge of the principles that underlie
domestic economy, and the course of study is especially arranged to
furnish women instruction in applied house-keeping and the arts and
sciences relating thereto--to incite them to a faithful performance of
the every-day duties of life, and to inspire them with a belief in the
nobleness and dignity of a true womanhood.
“No calling requires for its perfect mastery a greater amount of
practice and theory combined than that of domestic economy, and
students, in addition to recitations and lectures on the various topics
of the course, receive practical training in all branches of house-work,
in the purchase and care of family supplies, and in general household
management. They are not, however, required to perform a greater amount
of labor than is necessary for the desired instruction.
“The course of study is for graduates of colleges and universities. It
extends through two years, and leads to the degree of Master of Domestic
Economy.”[109]
[109] Annual Catalogue of the Iowa Agricultural College.
The Le Moyne Normal Institute of Memphis, Tenn., is a private school,
“sustained chiefly by benevolently disposed people at the North, for
colored youth.” In a letter to the author the principal of this school
thus describes the manual features of its curriculum:
“Besides our Normal work proper, we give girls of the school two years’
training in needle-work of different kinds, one year’s instruction in
choice and preparation of foods, with practice in an experimental
kitchen, and six months’ training in nursing or care of the sick. One
hour a day is given to each of the foregoing subjects for the time
indicated.
“I am about to erect workshops for training for our boys in the use of
wood-working tools, and in iron-working and moulding--the course to
comprise two years’ time, two hours per day at the benches. We shall
also have type-setting and printing as specialties for individual
students. This work will be in operation in January, 1886.”[110]
[110] A. J. Steele.
The professor in charge of the Mechanical Engineering Department of the
University of Michigan writes to the author as follows:
“There can be no doubt in the mind of a sane man that this practical
instruction [laboratory work] is exactly what is needed by our
engineering students. We are assured of that fact by the expression of
gratification on the part of our engineering _alumni_ to find here the
very instruction which they were obliged to spend two or three years to
secure after graduating. We give our students work of an elementary
character for a few weeks, or until they become accustomed to tools,
when we put them to work on some part of a machine. If they spoil it,
well and good--it goes into the scrap-heap; if they succeed, they have
the pleasure of seeing a perfect machine grow up under their eyes and
hand. Students having matured minds, as most of ours have, work better
with a definite plan in view. We always require them to work from
drawings. Our course in forging is very popular; and it is especially
useful, as it gives our young men that knowledge of the different kinds
of iron and steel which will be of the greatest benefit to them as
engineers.”[111]
[111] Mortimer E. Cooley, Assistant Engineer, U. S. Navy.
The National Educational Association of the United States, at its last
meeting, at Saratoga Springs, N. Y. (1885), took a great step forward in
the adoption of a resolution[112] endorsing the kindergarten. The
association was, however, singularly illogical in its subsequent
action, in voting to lay upon the table a resolution[113] recommending
the introduction of manual training to the public schools. The
kindergarten and manual training are one in principle, and should be one
in practice. All educators will soon see this, and the National
Educational Association will no doubt soon place itself as heartily on
record in support of manual training as it has already done in support
of the kindergarten.
[112] “_Resolved_, that we trust the time is near at hand when the
true principles of the kindergarten will guide all elementary
training, and when public sentiment and legislative enactment will
incorporate the kindergarten into our public-school system.”
[113] “_Resolved_, That we recognize the educational value of training
the hand to skill in the use of tools, and recommend that provision be
made, as far as practicable, for such training in public schools.”
Ohio ranks as the third State in the Union industrially, and she is
making great strides in the direction of a more practical system of
education. This is shown by the prominent place given to instruction in
the mechanic arts in the State University at Columbus, by the prosperity
of the Case School of Applied Science, and the introduction of manual
training to the public-school system at Cleveland, and by the
establishment of the Scott Manual Training School at Toledo. The city of
Toledo owes the inception of the movement in support of the new
education to the munificence of the late Jesup W. Scott, who during his
life conveyed to trustees for purposes of industrial education, in
connection with the public-school system, certain valuable real estate.
After the death of Mr. Scott, his three sons,[114] still residents of
Toledo, supplemented their father’s donation with a sufficient sum of
money to secure the erection and complete equipment of a manual training
school for three hundred and fifty pupils.
[114] William F., Frank J., and Maurice Scott.
The school is modelled after the schools of St. Louis and Chicago; but
it gives only the manual side of the curriculum, because it is
conducted in connection with the public High School, receiving its
pupils therefrom. It opened in the autumn of 1884 with sixty pupils, ten
of whom were girls. Its register now numbers two hundred, fifty of whom
are girls. Its course for boys is substantially the same as that of the
Chicago school. The course for girls includes free-hand and mechanical
drawing, designing, modelling, wood-carving, cutting, fitting, and
making garments, and domestic science, including food preparation and
household decoration. A distinguished lawyer and citizen of Toledo,[115]
who has been prominent in the work of establishing the school, says,
[115] Hon. A. E. Macomber.
“The brightest and most faithful pupils of the High School have eagerly
availed themselves of the opportunity for manual instruction, and the
zeal with which this new work is pursued has added a new charm to school
life.”
The school is in charge of Mr. Ralph Miller, B.S., who is assisted by
Mr. Geo. S. Mills, B.S.[116] It is especially interesting, both as the
newest educational enterprise and because it places the sexes on a
footing of absolute equality. Reform in education must begin with woman,
for it is from her that man inherits his notable traits, and from her
that he receives the earliest and most enduring impressions. In the arms
of the mother the infant mind rapidly unfolds. It is in the cradle, in
the nursery, and at the fireside that the child becomes father of the
man. The regeneration of the race through education must, then, begin
with the child, and be directed by the mother; and this being the fact,
the education of woman becomes far more imperative than that of man.
[116] Graduates of the St. Louis Manual Training School, class of
1884.
That the ancients made so little progress in morals is due to the fact
of their neglect of the education of woman. Neither in Egypt nor Persia
was provision made for her mental or moral training. There were schools
for boys in Greece, but none for girls; and not till late in the Empire
was there any special culture for girls in Rome.
In the Middle Ages learning was confined to the religious orders. The
narrow bounds of the convent contained all there was of science and art.
In the castle and at the tournament woman ministered to man’s pride and
vanity; and in the peasant’s hut, which was the abode equally of poverty
and ignorance, she endured both mental and moral starvation. Sir Walter
Raleigh, Lord Bacon, Swift, Addison, Lord Chesterfield, Dr. Johnson, and
Southey treated woman with mingled contempt and pity, and yet they were
familiar with the story of Lucretia, of Virginia, and of the Maid of
Orleans! But Shakespeare, with a sublimer genius, portrayed a Cordelia,
a Desdemona, an Imogen, and a Queen Catharine, and with rare prevision
of a future better than the age he knew, wrote these glowing lines:
“Falsehood and cowardice
Are things that women highly hold in hate.”
This is the rational age, though not less truly chivalrous than that of
Arthur and his knights; for, as Ruskin well says, “The buckling on of
the knight’s armor by his lady’s hand is the type of an eternal
truth--that the soul’s armor is never well set to the heart unless a
woman’s hand has braced it.”[117]
[117] “Sesame and Lilies,” p. 97. By John Ruskin, LL.D. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1884.
The distinguishing features of this time are its homes and its schools,
and the purity of the one and the efficiency of the other depends upon
woman. It was reserved for Froebel to rescue woman from the scorn of
preceding ages by declaring her superior fitness for the office of
teacher--the most exalted of civil functions.
The growth of the kindergarten has not been commensurate with its
importance. Indifference and prejudice have united to discourage
progress. Ancient contempt of childhood--that contempt which in Persia
excluded the boy from the presence of his father until the fifth year of
his age[118]--projects its sombre shadow down the ages. But manual
training, which is the kindergarten in another form, is leading captive
the imagination of the American people, and where the imagination leads,
woman is in the van. Woman is to man what the poet is to the scientist,
what Shakespeare was to Newton, the celestial guide. She tempts to deeds
of heroism and self-sacrifice. She is less selfish than man, because a
more vivid imagination inspires her with a deeper feeling of compassion
for the misfortunes and follies of the race. Her intuitions are truer
than those of man, her ideals higher, her sense of justice finer, and of
duty stronger; and she has a better appreciation of the moral value of
industry, remembering the temptations of her sex to evil through habits
of idleness, enforced by the decrees of custom. And she is our teacher,
whether we will or no--our teacher from the cradle to the grave--and it
is through her ministry that we are destined to realize our highest
mental and moral ideals.[E32]
[118] “Herodotus,” Clio I., p. 136.
This sketch of the history of manual training in the United States is
doubtless incomplete. It is, however, sufficient to show that the
subject is already one of absorbing interest in all parts of the
country.
Manual training in the public schools of Europe can scarcely be called
educational, since the pupils usually make articles for household use.
The purpose is purely industrial, and hence the mental culture received
in the course of the manual exercise is the mere incident of a
mechanical pursuit. But the making of things in the schools of Europe is
gradually extending.
In Denmark an annual appropriation ($2000) is made by the Legislature
for the encouragement of _slöjd_ (hand-cunning) in the schools. All
pupils in Danish and Swedish schools make things.
In Germany, Dr. Erasmus Schwab published in Vienna, in 1873, a book,
“The Work School in the Common School.” Rittmeister Claussen Von Kaas,
of Denmark, travelled through Germany and delivered lectures on manual
training, and now there is a considerable agitation of the subject.
In Finland all the country schools are _slöjd_ schools.
In 1881 the Legislature of Norway appropriated $1250 for the support of
_slöjd_ in the schools.
In France a law (1882) makes manual training obligatory, and a school
for training teachers has been established--“L’école Normale Superieure
de travail Manuel”--in which there are about fifty students. Prof. G.
Solicis was the chief supporter of manual training in France.
In Sweden, in 1876, there were eighty _slöjd_ schools. In 1877 the
number had increased to one hundred; in 1878, to one hundred and thirty;
in 1879, to two hundred; in 1880, to three hundred; in 1881, to four
hundred; and in 1882, to five hundred.
In Nääs, in Sweden, there is a seminary for the training of _slöjd_
teachers.[119] Of this seminary Otto Salomon is director. In the _slöjd_
schools small articles are made for use in the house, kitchen, on the
farm, etc. The course of instruction embraces one hundred models. The
materials for the first series of twenty-five models cost about 40
cents; for the second series of twenty-five the cost is 75 cents; and
for the third series of fifty the cost is $3.25. The annual expense of
the manual training in a Swedish country school is about ten to eleven
dollars.
[119] “Four young women have graduated from the Slöjd Teacher’s
Seminary at Nääs, Sweden, and two of them are now engaged in teaching
manual arts.”--Letter from John M. Ordway, A.M., Chair of Applied
Chemistry and Biology, and Director of Manual Training, Tulane
University of Louisiana.
The technical and mechanic art or trade schools of Europe, generally,
whether public or private, do not come within the scope of this work,
since their purpose is industrial, not educational.
[E32] “In fine, I have been beloved by the four women whose love was
of the most comfort to me: My mother, my sister, my wife and my
daughter. I have had the better part, and it will not be taken from
me, for I often fancy that the judgments which will be passed upon us
in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, will be neither more nor less than those
of women, countersigned by the Almighty.”--“Recollections of My
Youth,” p. 306. By Ernest Renan. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1883.